Age of Accountability - scriptural foundation and a few questions?

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
All were at risk and all murmured. It says the entire congregation wanted to stone Joshua.

Only those above twenty, both men and women, even those who couldn't fight were barred from entering rest.
I fail to see how this in any way dismisses what I said, Num 1:3 gives us the significance of "20 years and older" there is nothing you can do to escape this fact.

Amazing! I must admit that I've never heard this interpretation before and actually considered it a good option. However problems crop up.
Well then you don't understand what the framers of the confession are talking about. Just a question before we go on to what the framers were talking about, when you were born from your mother, what did you do? What "willing" did you do to be born? It was all a work of your mother right?
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I really don't know how you can blame Greek philosophy for the doctrine of original sin when Greek philosophy has no doctrine of original sin, and I really don't see how a world without the doctrine of original sin isn't kinder and gentler.

Dualism is reached in different ways, but one is labelled dualist if he believes material entities are evil and spiritual, good.

In this way we can verify if Judaism, Eastern orthodoxy and western Protestantism is affected by dualism.

How dualism is recognized in pagan religions
and philosophies

Orphitism believes men are spiritual beings trapped in an evil material body through an accidental mixing of mortal and immortal elements , of gods and titans.

Plato taught the goal of men was to escape from the material body, which was an imperfect copy, manifestation of a unique true spiritual body.

The EO believe in ancestral sin, but not transfered guilt. They believe that Adam's sin changed man and his situation.

Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to them.

Augustine taught that the human body was a perfect body made imperfect by the sin of Adam. Thus the doctrine of original sin teaches that in Adam, all men sinned. Logically, his guilt is shared. It follows also that we are born as sinners.

Is the Doctrine of Original Sin dualist? Yes.

Was the doctrine formed through Platonist influence? Yes.

Is Modern Christianity infected with Greek dualism? Yes.

Does this affect accountability of minors? Yes.

God found all the Israelites as acceptable, clean according to the terms and conditions of his covenant, when they left Egypt. They were faithful according to the response to the revelation and circumstance they found themselves in at a particular point in their journey, because God requires perseverance in loyalty to his covenant from those who accepted tp take part. Every time israel displayed disloyalty, He revealed his wrath. When Israel refused to cross the Jordan and fight, God barred her from entering the Promised Land. The children were exempt.

This was to prove Israel wrong, when she complained that her children would be enslaved as a result of defeat at the hands of the giants. The children were property, belonged to the elders. Those who were adults belonged to God.


God interpreted this to mean those below twenty.

If those below twenty were considered children, then they had automatic access to the Kingdom of God. As supported by this:


Luke 18:16But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
 
Upvote 0
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
Is the Doctrine of Original Sin dualist? Yes.

Was the doctrine formed through Platonist influence? Yes.

Is Modern Christianity infected with Greek dualism? Yes.

Does this affect accountability of minors? Yes.

God found all the Israelites as acceptable, clean according to the terms and conditions of his covenant, when they left Egypt. They were faithful according to the response to the revelation and circumstance they found themselves in at a particular point in their journey, because God requires perseverance in loyalty to his covenant from those who accepted tp take part. Every time israel displayed disloyalty, He revealed his wrath. When Israel refused to cross the Jordan and fight, God barred her from entering the Promised Land. The children were exempt.

This was to prove Israel wrong, when she complained that her children would be enslaved as a result of defeat at the hands of the giants. The children were property, belonged to the elders. Those who were adults belonged to God.


God interpreted this to mean those below twenty.

If those below twenty were considered children, then they had automatic access to the Kingdom of God. As supported by this:


Luke 18:16But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

I object in the strongest terms to being called a dualist, and the doctrine of original sin is not dependent upon dualism. Heck, I'm a trauducianist when it comes to the soul, and I come from a tradition (Lutheranism) that is probably more favorable to soul sleep than any other traditional, orthodox Christian faith group. The belief in original sin is not grounded in any particular theory of the soul, but in how God regards the total human person. The total human person, without division, may be regarded by God from conception as a sinner without any reference to the composition of that total human person.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I fail to see how this in any way dismisses what I said, Num 1:3 gives us the significance of "20 years and older" there is nothing you can do to escape this fact.

The point is that God interprets children to be those who were below twenty. Nothing anybody can do to change that fact.


Well then you don't understand what the framers of the confession are talking about. Just a question before we go on to what the framers were talking about, when you were born from your mother, what did you do? What "willing" did you do to be born? It was all a work of your mother right?


Explain what the framers meant. Also explain what "willing" has to do with the event of my birth? If it helps to move the discussion along, I admit we have nothing to choose regarding whether the event of our birth happens or not.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I object in the strongest terms to being called a dualist, and the doctrine of original sin is not dependent upon dualism. Heck, I'm a trauducianist when it comes to the soul, and I come from a tradition (Lutheranism) that is probably more favorable to soul sleep than any other traditional, orthodox Christian faith group. The belief in original sin is not grounded in any particular theory of the soul, but in how God regards the total human person. The total human person, without division, may be regarded by God from conception as a sinner without any reference to the composition of that total human person.

There is nothing in Scripture that says the Fall changed men. God created man and said it was good. If you say man is now a sinner, you have stated that the unchanged man God created is a sinner. Dualism.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The point is that God interprets children to be those who were below twenty. Nothing anybody can do to change that fact.
Except that there is a specific reason that is not tied to accountability for all sin present in someone's life but rather the sinfulness in regards to not following Yahweh into his judgement upon the Canaanites.



Explain what the framers meant.
Your response hinges on faith being an act of the person that results in regeneration, the framers like all the other English Reformers saw faith as the result of Regeneration. Such is clear from the preceding paragraphs in the chapter which deal with the norm of Election rather than this specific one which deals with the extenuating cases affirming the basis upon which the whole confession is formed; that God is Sovereign over all Blessed forever Amen and Amen.

Also explain what "willing" has to do with the event of my birth? If it helps to move the discussion along, I admit we have nothing to choose regarding whether the event of our birth happens or not.
Then by consequent there can be nothing which you do in and of yourself which will enact the Birth from Above. It is a work of the Potter as he takes our heart of stone and places within us those fleshy tablets written upon by his Spirit if Love.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
There is nothing in Scripture that says the Fall changed men. God created man and said it was good. If you say man is now a sinner, you have stated that the unchanged man God created is a sinner. Dualism.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

No place huh? And this is just one of many I could bring the whole counsel to bear, but I believe one place suffices.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is nothing in Scripture that says the Fall changed men. God created man and said it was good. If you say man is now a sinner, you have stated that the unchanged man God created is a sinner. Dualism.

Dualism is not being understood right.

Furthermore, the Holy Writ plainly states that those who say they are without sin deceive themselves.

Furthermore, being in a fallen state doesn't mean being in a state of actual sin. Even in a state of grace, we're still fallen because it is human nature that fell, which happened after creation.

Your argument is therefore rendered invalid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Dualism is reached in different ways, but one is labelled dualist if he believes material entities are evil and spiritual, good.

Except that your later argument isn't based on this premise, so your argument is, again, rendered null and void.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

No place huh? And this is just one of many I could bring the whole counsel to bear, but I believe one place suffices.

I suggest you read the entire thread.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I suggest you read the entire thread.

Why, there is nothing of substance in any argument put forth in the history of the Church what makes you my dear pelagian friend so confident that your answer to Rom 5:12 is any more convincing than any of the other arguments over the past 2000 years?
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I never argued anything. I only posted the analysis of modern Christian writers.

You posted an "argument" against GratiaCorpusChristi's earlier post; an argument that didn't even follow its own premise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why, there is nothing of substance in any argument put forth in the history of the Church what makes you my dear pelagian friend so confident that your answer to Rom 5:12 is any more convincing than any of the other arguments over the past 2000 years?


This was posted without any counter from anyone. I hope you have something worthwhile to rebutt the view. Childish counters like "I'm right!", "No you're not!", can't move the discussion along. Who knows, I could paint myself into a corner, dig into a hole I can't get out of, if critiqued hard enough!

It was Augustine who backed the dualism , which appealed to his Manichaean sensibilities with even more disastrous results:

Quote
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was a great thinker and church leader. As a young man he had left his Christian background and become a Manichaean, a follower of an anti-Christian dualistic religion; eventually he came back to the Christian faith. But he was not a great linguist. He could speak and understand well only his native Latin, not Greek. And so for his understanding of the Bible he had to rely on translations into Latin.

Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12

Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

http://www.gentlewisdom.org/246/augustines-mistake-about-sin/
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
It was Augustine who backed the dualism , which appealed to his Manichaen sensibilities, with Scripture, with even more disastrous results:
The problem with citing Augustine as the generator of the doctrine that we are fundamentally in need of a saviour and citing his links prior to his conversion to Manichaen dualism as the driving force behind this is that it is wrong. I will be coming at the question from a Historical-Theological point of view and be focusing on the Pelagian Controversy as the defining controversy in which the doctrines we have in question arise.

The whole idea of whether it is Manichaen or "Greek" to talk about Original Sin fails to address what I feel are the core issues in the Sovereignty of God and why we as creatures need to be reconciled to God. These stand at the center of the controversy and the doctrines in question. For both sides of the controversy the main sin of man was his rejection wholesale of God, where these sides differed was in their conclusions of what this meant in terms of their moral status. The Augustinian and therefore what is understood to be the orthodox side of this controversy saw this rejection of God as flowing on to all aspects of human morality and so called piety, this does have tremendous antecedence in historical Judaism, especially in places such as the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah where the One True God sees Idolatry and rejection of Him as the main need for his act of reconciliation victoriously proclaimed in the One He Crushed.

If what our friend proposes is true that the need for a saviour for all humanity is a later invention by Greek (or in this case Latin) philosophers then he need do more than equivocate about Augustine's lack of Greek understanding, he need to assault the Sovereignty of God an axiom of Scripture so deeply laid that even the most strident pelagian has yet to uproot it.

Our Pelagian friend then rests with the problem how do I surmount the insurmountable wisdom in God in being Sovereign over all things, can he really join with Isaiah in being comfortable with a God who declares; "I create good, I create evil" and acknowledges that before the flood "God was grieved by humanity's evil" I put to you dear reader that our friend has determined that the perversion of the image that God placed in the garden through sin didn't have ramifications that fundamentally affect who we are as people, though it is said that after that image came all humanity. The accusations of dualism to those who hold to the doctrine is a mere smoke-screen for all pelagians to try and cover their own dualism which ultimately robs God of his Sovereignty and gives equal footing to the Accuser to hold sway over man.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with citing Augustine as the generator of the doctrine that we are fundamentally in need of a saviour and citing his links prior to his conversion to Manichaen dualism as the driving force behind this is that it is wrong. I will be coming at the question from a Historical-Theological point of view and be focusing on the Pelagian Controversy as the defining controversy in which the doctrines we have in question arise.

The whole idea of whether it is Manichaen or "Greek" to talk about Original Sin fails to address what I feel are the core issues in the Sovereignty of God and why we as creatures need to be reconciled to God. These stand at the center of the controversy and the doctrines in question. For both sides of the controversy the main sin of man was his rejection wholesale of God, where these sides differed was in their conclusions of what this meant in terms of their moral status. The Augustinian and therefore what is understood to be the orthodox side of this controversy saw this rejection of God as flowing on to all aspects of human morality and so called piety, this does have tremendous antecedence in historical Judaism, especially in places such as the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah where the One True God sees Idolatry and rejection of Him as the main need for his act of reconciliation victoriously proclaimed in the One He Crushed.

If what our friend proposes is true that the need for a saviour for all humanity is a later invention by Greek (or in this case Latin) philosophers then he need do more than equivocate about Augustine's lack of Greek understanding, he need to assault the Sovereignty of God an axiom of Scripture so deeply laid that even the most strident pelagian has yet to uproot it.

Our Pelagian friend then rests with the problem how do I surmount the insurmountable wisdom in God in being Sovereign over all things, can he really join with Isaiah in being comfortable with a God who declares; "I create good, I create evil" and acknowledges that before the flood "God was grieved by humanity's evil" I put to you dear reader that our friend has determined that the perversion of the image that God placed in the garden through sin didn't have ramifications that fundamentally affect who we are as people, though it is said that after that image came all humanity. The accusations of dualism to those who hold to the doctrine is a mere smoke-screen for all pelagians to try and cover their own dualism which ultimately robs God of his Sovereignty and gives equal footing to the Accuser to hold sway over man.

Where did he do this:

"If what our friend proposes is true that the need for a saviour for all humanity is a later invention by Greek (or in this case Latin) philosophers" ?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Where did he do this:

"If what our friend proposes is true that the need for a saviour for all humanity is a later invention by Greek (or in this case Latin) philosophers" ?

By siding with Pelagius in the controversy you are denying that there is any need whatsoever for a saviour, because that is ultimately where Pelagianism leads an inept god upon whom we do not depend.
 
Upvote 0